If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Common Sense, reasonable regulation, etc...

I read, in another thread, the "polite and civil discussion" about common sense equaling reasonable regulation, etc.

My opinion on it is this. I think it is reasonable and prudent to expect a potential CCW holder to have at least a minimum of knowledge on how to handle their firearm and the laws surrounding its use. Training is NEVER wasted, if it is good training. I have personally known several people who shouldn't even be in the same county as a firearm, let alone be allowed to carry one. (because they're dumber than rocks)

I have worked as a LEO and I've seen many people who have legally carried a firearm and they've been careless or ignorant about that very grave responsibility.

Years before, I worked at a gun shop/public shooting range. I witnessed customers bringing their guns into the range and watched them shoot holes in partitions, ceilings, and floors because they were completely clueless about how their new weapon worked. In every case, I exercised my right as the range master and took the firearm away from them and suggested (in the strongest possible terms, and with a minimum of profanity) that they take a course and learn which end the lead comes out before returning to MY range.

I know some of the poster here will state their position that there shouldn't be ANY requirement that someone be trained or regulated in order to carry a firearm. That is their position and I respect that. I just happen to disagree with them. As I said, training is never a bad idea.

Ready on the right?
Ready on the left?
Ready on the line?
The flag is up, commence firing!

I agree. You don't issue a drivers license without some driver training or proving to someone you can drive. A car is a big weapon. A gun is like any other tool, if you don't know how to use it get some training or stay away from it.

"You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

I agree. You don't issue a drivers license without some driver training or proving to someone you can drive. A car is a big weapon. A gun is like any other tool, if you don't know how to use it get some training or stay away from it.

The difference is that driving isn't protected as a Constitutional Amendment. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. We've seen the kind of unintended consequences that "reasonable regulations" can cause. Besides, cars cause more deaths per year than guns do, but you don't hear about people wanting to ban cars.

I, for one, believe people should be able to purchase and carry any kind of firearm they want with no restrictions whatsoever.

Common Sense and Reasonable Regulation

Originally Posted by Midnight

The difference is that driving isn't protected as a Constitutional Amendment. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. We've seen the kind of unintended consequences that "reasonable regulations" can cause. Besides, cars cause more deaths per year than guns do, but you don't hear about people wanting to ban cars.

I, for one, believe people should be able to purchase and carry any kind of firearm they want with no restrictions whatsoever.

Correct me if I am wrong, but more people own cars than own guns, so statistically it seems about right that cars would cause more deaths than guns. No?

I believe that the world inhabited by the Founding Fathers was very different from the world we live in now. They were visionaries, and their wise words apply to much of American life now--over 200 years later! Our Founding Fathers were smart enough to know that they were not "all seeing," and that is why there was a purposeful allowance for change/amendments.

I do not think that the Founding Fathers would object to removing a musket from the hands of someone who might willfully use it to harm others instead of to defend their homes or nation. I also think that upon receiving your first musket, someone somehow taught you how to load and shoot it, they taught you why you needed to keep your powder dry, and they told you that your musket was for hunting and/or for defense of your home or nation.

The 2nd Amendment is about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." Personally, I believe that the words "people" actually mean "the populace, with regard to the greater good." To me, it did not mean each individual person.

I'm sure that there are those who would argue with me, but giving someone a weapon without teaching them how to use it safely, and finding out if they have the mental wherewithal to use it prudently is like putting a gun into the hands of a child...

Does the 2nd Amendment really mean we should put guns into the hands of children or the mentally ill just because they are American?

Even today, when we give weapons to national leaders, there is a system of checks and balances to make sure that the weapons are utilized wisely and for the good of the people. There is a responsibility that goes with controlling a weapon--any weapon--and the more powerful the weapon the more we scrutinize when and how it is used.

Correct me if I am wrong, but more people own cars than own guns, so statistically it seems about right that cars would cause more deaths than guns. No?

I believe that the world inhabited by the Founding Fathers was very different from the world we live in now. They were visionaries, and their wise words apply to much of American life now--over 200 years later! Our Founding Fathers were smart enough to know that they were not "all seeing," and that is why there was a purposeful allowance for change/amendments.

I do not think that the Founding Fathers would object to removing a musket from the hands of someone who might willfully use it to harm others instead of to defend their homes or nation. I also think that upon receiving your first musket, someone somehow taught you how to load and shoot it, they taught you why you needed to keep your powder dry, and they told you that your musket was for hunting and/or for defense of your home or nation.

The 2nd Amendment is about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." Personally, I believe that the words "people" actually mean "the populace, with regard to the greater good." To me, it did not mean each individual person.

I'm sure that there are those who would argue with me, but giving someone a weapon without teaching them how to use it safely, and finding out if they have the mental wherewithal to use it prudently is like putting a gun into the hands of a child...

Does the 2nd Amendment really mean we should put guns into the hands of children or the mentally ill just because they are American?

Even today, when we give weapons to national leaders, there is a system of checks and balances to make sure that the weapons are utilized wisely and for the good of the people. There is a responsibility that goes with controlling a weapon--any weapon--and the more powerful the weapon the more we scrutinize when and how it is used.

Look back at the danger our troops were in in Africa. Kids 8 years old with ak 47s. So don't go saying that guns are hard to learn to shot you just point the barrel and pull the trigger. Most of the danger was from our troops not wanting to kill kids and the dictators in charge knew this and used it to their advantage.

As most people can confirm the training you take to get a drivers license is pathetic. After the driving test and you obtain your drivers license most of what they taught goes out the window.

The other problem you will face with making people get training before owning a gun is someone suing you for the training you gave the person who shot them instead of the bad guy.

Training only works when the person wants to learn. Look at all the police officers who get training but still end up missing their target and hitting bystanders.But because they had training I am suppose to be ok with it? Even though the results of the training are poor.

So while I agree people should get training for the firearm they want to carry, I don't agree with forcing them to get training before they can own a firearm.As the police officers I mention before are forced to do the training and most only do enough to pass then forget about it till it is time again. While others want to better their skills and seek classes to help improve their skills. I wish all police officers where like that but they are not some just see it as forced training that they have to pass to keep their job so they do as little as necessary to pass.

The difference is that driving isn't protected as a Constitutional Amendment. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. We've seen the kind of unintended consequences that "reasonable regulations" can cause. Besides, cars cause more deaths per year than guns do, but you don't hear about people wanting to ban cars.

I, for one, believe people should be able to purchase and carry any kind of firearm they want with no restrictions whatsoever.

The problem is that possession of a gun for purposes other than self defense in one's home is not a constitutionally protected right under present law. So it is exactly like driving - a privilege.

The problem is that possession of a gun for purposes other than self defense in one's home is not a constitutionally protected right under present law. So it is exactly like driving - a privilege.

We may wish it was otherwise but it is not.

Interesting theory that does not hold water. Let's look at D.C. v. Heller. Did Heller CREATE the Constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms in homes in Washington D.C.? NO. Heller did NOT create the protection. Heller APPLIED the protection that ALREADY existed. The US Supreme Court did not change the 2nd Amendment, they applied the 2nd Amendment.

McDonald v. Chicago.... did McDonald CREATE the Constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms in homes outside Washington D.C.? Again, NO. McDonald did NOT create the protection. McDonald APPLIED the protection that ALREADY existed via both the 2nd Amendment and the 14th Amendment. The US Supreme Court did nothing to change the 2nd or 14th Amendments, they merely applied them.

Neither case CHANGED any rights at all. What both cases did was beat down the government regulation that infringed upon the protection ALREADY offered since the day the 2nd Amendment was ratified. And that's why this argument that carrying a firearm in public for self protection is not a Constitutionally protected right is false. The 2nd Amendment has no wording in it about "in one's home" does it?

The right is ALREADY Constitutionally protected.... the problem is government's infringement upon that right, which hopefully will be beat down, just like Heller and McDonald did.

Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

The difference is that driving isn't protected as a Constitutional Amendment. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. We've seen the kind of unintended consequences that "reasonable regulations" can cause. Besides, cars cause more deaths per year than guns do, but you don't hear about people wanting to ban cars.

I, for one, believe people should be able to purchase and carry any kind of firearm they want with no restrictions whatsoever.

I agree cars kill more people every year than guns do and who knows how many cars are used as weapons to murder. But I for one am not comfortable with people carrying guns that don't have a clue of how to use them. I have been on too many scenes where people are careless with guns.

"You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

The difference is that driving isn't protected as a Constitutional Amendment. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. We've seen the kind of unintended consequences that "reasonable regulations" can cause. Besides, cars cause more deaths per year than guns do, but you don't hear about people wanting to ban cars.

I, for one, believe people should be able to purchase and carry any kind of firearm they want with no restrictions whatsoever.

Your comparison of guns to cars is a specious one. You're comparing apples to monkey wrenches. While I admit that cars can be very dangerous in the hands of idiots, they are not designed as weapons. They may be used as one, but so may a rock or a hammer. Comparing a gun to a crossbow would be more appropriate.

As I stated in my original post, I see nothing wrong with some kind of training being required before owning a handgun. (This is the trigger. Don't pull it unless you want to put holes in something.) While stating that drivers training is ineffective or useless, it does serve a purpose. Once someone has been trained, they can and must be held accountable for their actions. They can't use the arguement "I was never told about that." (Though they DO try.)

Would you put a gun into the hands of someone if you thought that their first act with it was to shoot you accidently, simply because they didn't know how to use it properly? By the logic of some here (you guys know I luv ya, right?) it would be ok with them because they feel its everyone's right to own a firearm without any restriction or requirement whatsoever.

I'm not advocating restricting the right to keep and bear arms. However, a right as important as that should be safeguarded by requiring that the bearer be trained first. We, as gun owners and carriers, should do whatever we can to make sure that left-leaning wackos have no ammunition that they can use against us. An untrained, armed populace is a ripe breeding ground for that kind of ammo. A trained, armed populace is a much better defense against liberal totalitarianism.